General Disclaimer

One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document

This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the

organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as

much information as possible.

This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was

furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy

available.

This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures,

which have been reproduced in black and white.

This document is paginated as submitted by the original source.

Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some

of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original

submission.

Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19770019082 2020-06-28T12:35:46+00:00Z

n000 a

TedmIogy+ Economics, Inc. Submitted to:129 Moot Aubum Street

C

wr&Wge. Massachusetts 02138

,URBAN SYSTEMS PROJECT OFFICE17491-1500 Johnson Space Flight Center

NASAHouston, Texas

URBAN CONSTRUCTION ANDSAFETY PROJECT

Second Quarterly ReportMay-June, 1975

Contract # NAS9-14529

U

U

U

U

Lit

U

U

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ........................... ^..................... 1

INTRODUCTION .....................•...................... 2

1.0 THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROCESS . ................... 3

2.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS ............................ 8

2.1 Flat Conductor Cable .......................... 9

2.1.1 Background...... . . ..................... 9

2.1.2 Chronology ............................. 12

2.2 The NASA House and Compendium ................. 26

2.3 Flood Insurance Studies . ...................... 29

2.4 Tornado Studies ..........................».... 32

2.5 Controller for Stationary Diesels ............. 34

3.0 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................... 35

3.1 Tech Search and Access ........................ 36

3.2 Interaction with Other NASA TU ProgramElements ...................................... 38

ttEttt

tPREFACE

This report describes the activities of the Urban Construction

and Safety Project at Technology + Economics, Inc., during its

second quarter of operations, from May to July, 1975.

The objective of the project is to apply technology developed

by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to prob-

lems identified in urban construction and safety. The project is

supported by the NASA Technology Utilization Office and monitored by

the Urban Systems Project Office of Johnson Space Center under con-

tract NAS9-14529.

NASA Staff involved in the project is as follows:

Carely Lively, Contract Manager,

William L. Smith, Technology Applications Division.

Andrew Sears, of the Technology Applications Division, serves

as principal government technical advisor.

James Hankins of Marshall Space Flight Center, serves as tech-

nical advisor on matters related to the flat conductor cable project.

Technology + Economics contract staff is as follows:

David J. MacFadyen, Project Director

Allan D. Ackerman, Operations Manager

James R. Simpson, Senior Scientist

W. Curtiss Priest, Senior Analyst

Peter T. Hogarth, Analyst

Robert F. Stone, Economist

Eli Castro, Documentation

Margaret M. Bucciero, Secretary

tt

INTRODUCTION

This report has three main sections. Section 1.0 is a back-

ground statement describing the general nature of the Urban Con-

struction and Safety Project's activities. Section 2.0 describes

the main technology transfer activities that occurred during this

quarter. Section 3.0 presents a set of operational considerations

for future conduct of the project that have developed out of this

reporting period.

IV,

i

I

2

1.0 THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROCESS

"Technology transfer" is the application of products or tech-

niques developed for special purposes in one context to needs or

opportunities perceived in another. It takes a need or opportunity

from one context and matches it with a relevant technology developed

in another context. This process can occur spontaneously, or it can

be deliberately and systematically hastened.

NASA's Technology Utilization Program works deliberately and

actively towards the full technology utilization promised in the

National Aeronautics and Space Act.-of 1958:

The aeronautical and space activities of the United Statesshall be conducted so as to contribute...to the expansionof human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere andspace. The Administration shall provide for the widestpracticable and appropriate dissimination of information

Lis

concerning its activities and the results thereof.

An important component of NASA's program to meet this mandate

has been the establishment of Technology Application Teams (TAT's)

designed to actively match problems in specific applications areas

with NASA solution technologies. The Urban Construction and SafetyISE, Project (USCP) at Technology + • Economics, Inc., (T+E) is one such

team.

Technology transfer is never a cut-and-dried process that pro-

ceeds according to a set pattern. The constraints and opportunities

presented by each transfer project are unique, and define their own

appropriate operational style. Nevertheless, in every completed trans-

fer project, there are certain basic logical elements that always

occur and that can be identified in some form. These basic elements

are the following:

• An identifiable and definable problem in the applica-tions sector.

• An identifiable potential solution technology withinthe body of NASA technologic al—resources.

Ei-I

3

• An ongoing assessment of the feasibility of the proposedproblem/technology match, and of ways to improve this match.

• A user -- governmental, institutional, or commercial -- whocan specify exactly the performance and cost requirementsof the solution technology and who can motivate the neededapplications process.

r

Although they are not logically inherent to the process, the following

elements are also generally present:

• An applications process involving developmental work onthe part of A , users, and/or private manufacturers totransform the "raw" technology into a form appropriatefor the new application.

• Ongoing implementation mans ement on the part of the TATto facilitate communication between the various interestgroups and to overcome the obstacles to the innovation thatmay develop.

I^

These elements interact in a complex and varied pattern. Some-

times different parts of the process occur simutaneously; sometimes =

sequentially; and sometimes iteratively. An iterative process is

frequent: initial work toward implementation of an identified problem-

technology match often requires the UCSP team to re-define the problem

and subsequently consider alternative technologies.The most significant type of variation between different transfer

activities lies in the direction of the impetus to transfer. This

direction determines the basic structure of the transfer process.

A fundamental dichotomy may be identified between tech transfer in

which a known problem exists for which a technological solution is

sought; and in which a promising technology exists for which an appli-

cation is sought. These two processes may be termed respectively

"market pull" and "tech push". An example of a "market pull" process

from current UCSP work is the problem of the high cost of flood in-

surance studies for which a NASA-developed solution is being sought;

an example of a "tech push" project is a diesel engine controller

developed at Johnson Space Flight Center for which the UCSP is ass-

essing the market potential. The accompanying two charts respectively

schematize the characteristic forms of "market pull" and "tech push"

transfer processes.

4

It will be seen that the basic elements of each process are Simi-

lar. What is different is the direction of flow of the process which

engages these elements; the difference is symbolized by the reversal

of the direction of many of the arrows.

This brief overview of the technology transfer process as it

has been pursued by the T+E UCSP ' is highly abstract. The next sec-

tion of the report will present the UCSP team activities from a more

LE operational point of view. It will show some ways in which the ab-

stract process called "technology transfer" actually occurs, and in-

Edicate what the present project is achieving.

w0M

eO

C.

M

Ei

P•1

roai

a a

^t+

au

m^N

O•ri

as

2 c.02

=o

aa

N .,a

M u

co

N•,^ r-1

b

Hto

'0.J

HE

A b b0

d++

J

No

x°^

°ro

°ro

E+tv o0

ro^

a•^

'u .°

>0

H4.4

s:r ro

° u

IVrl

CC

l uN

U •ri

N 4J

d^

O++

LQWq)

(A00

O ++

Hd

o.

z0M'^

tt1

w2

o w

i-ir^3 w

x H

ca 044a

0A

c`

4c 0

V) E

-4

Ll

4^

Nwvao^w_

w

^_

6aKWH

aMM

0a

oN

aDH

M.w

Ga

mallot

aN

OM

CM

a

4J

NU

boW

0pr-4

rj f+

00"-1

O{v

"4 .000

04

J04

J+a

v^

^u

^^^

6V

a O

s r-4

90 Z

I ++

4) to

Id o

wa•

o•r^

+A

of

ac^o

fl^^SH

OO

u°

"^r4w

w°a

sc 6^

QZ

0O

Ha

rNi A

i

H94

ac..

aafa

MO

H4

^+

b^

!2^

Z

I2.9 IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS

This section of the report discusses the five main implementation

projects with which the Urban Construction and Safety Project has

been involved in this quarter. They are:

e Flat Conductor Cable

e The NASA House and Compendium

e Flood Insurance Studies

e Tornado Studies

e Controller for Stationary Diesels

8

FLAT CONDUCTOR CABLE

2.1.1 Background

The major implementation project now underway of the T+E Urban

Construction and Safety Project involves applying Flat Conductor

Cable, as developed for spacecraft wiring, to building applications.

Flat Conductor Cable (FCC) per,zits the development of very low-profile

electrical systems that are suitable for surface mounting on the

floors, walls, and ceilings of buildings. FCC systems are intended

to achieve major cost and system-flexibility breakdowns in building

wiring.

Two separate systems are being developed: an undercarpet system

and a baseboard system. The undercarpet system employs a flat power

cable, shielded by a grounded metal foil, that terminate in floor-

mounted receptacles. It is designed to interface with a flat-conductor

cable telephone system that is being concurrently engineered by

Western Electric. The advantages of the undercarpet FCC system lie

in its elimination of expensive underfloor ductwork in new buildings,

and in vastly simplified system revision in existing buildings. The

baseboard system involves a flat power cable, mounted in a plastic

surface-mounted baseboard raceway, with baseboard-mounted receptacles.

It also has provision for foil-protected wall- and ceiling-surface

runs. It has strong cost-saving potential for renovation work and

for concrete and masonry construction.

The present implementation project for the undercarpet power

system is the result of several years of effort to find manufacturers

and users interested in commercializing the system. The undercarpet

project is now moving forward rapidly, largely on the strength of the

interest shown by two large users -- Western Electric/Bell and the

U.S. General Services Administration. Their interest has resulted -

in the involvement of eight manufacturers in the necessary system

and hardware development work.The baseboard system project is at a less advanced phase of

development than the undercarpet system, insofar as manufacturers and

users have not yet shown a comparable degree of interest in it.

i

fl

ll

IJ

LR'

t

1R

E4

z=

Technical development is proceeding, however; its locus is Marshall

Space Flight Center. A viable prototype system has been developed

that is available for testing and for product development.

Both the baseboard and undercarpet projects are focussed upon

obtaining approval of the 1978 National Electrical Code (NEC) for use

of the systems. Significant changes in the NEC will be required,

and are expected to involve drafting of a new Code article. A Code

change proposal will be due in early 1977. The attached chart de-

tails this schedule.

Fact-finding studies are underway at Underwriters' Laboratories

(UL) at Melville, Long Island, for both FCC systems, These studies

will provide a background of test data and analyses that will enable

the NEC panel to assess the safety anel durability of the systems.

The T+E Urban Construction and Safety Project is invoi •-:=a in

sponsoring, managing, and coordinating the Code proposal and the UL

studies. T+E's role in the undercarpet project has passed from an

initial advocacy role to a complex implementation management task

involving the technical coordination of ten private organizations

plus NASA. With the baseboard system project, the management role

is simpler, because there are fewer participants. There are, however,

ongoing advocacy requirements to be met for this system, in order

to generate the needed level of industrial involvement.

Present FCC project activities are directed toward gaining the

required Code change. As the Code change issue is resolved, however,

other issues will come to the forefront. These future issues include

the following:

• If the 1978 NEC permits FCC systems, it will still benecessary to facilitate acceptance by local and citycodes, and by local electrical inspectors.

• The present UL Fact-Finding Studies will address viabilityof FCC systems from a conceptual point of view. It willstill remain to obtain approval by UL of individual systemcomponents. It will be the responsibility of the individualmanufacturers involved to obtain these approvals.

10

R►

pD

t.ITY

_4F

' _T

II^O

RM

INA

L P

AG

E 18 P

OO

R

H7+

UUGw

wWUawaz

I

nrnr-I'

LO

CD

r

X

+'

bto

,T v'W

aT

9O

•.^ro

ro-a

a0

uH

va

Ob

4J0

U

•,IO++

+jOOK

>,

vU)Op,

Y•O++

b3•+

3bb

UvO

a^i^b

t.^

w

a^Oi

.7,C

A4 J

U04J

i

4-0

++N

1

a

abUM

pU1^-Ha

Ubco

PL4

•F+

z

vA1db

• U

•

w

!!

LLW

•cc

11

EGCC

• Electricians' unions will have to accept FCC systemsbefore it is practical to install them on a widespreadbasis. At issue will be what impact the systems haveon electricians' work time. T+E has authored a studythat addresses this issue.

L-11

tf

ttti

I II

The accompanying chart diagrams the major steps involved in

carrying out the FCC implementation projects.

2.1.2 Chronology

February-April

The UCSP flat conductor cable activity in February and March

primarily consisted of a review of-project status. It was clear

that the project had been following a discoordinated course of

development in the preceding several months. The problems related

to:

• St"ndardization of cable size.

• The possible feasiblity of a two-wire system incor-porating a fail-safe ground fault interruptor.

• Coordination of hardware development by differentindustry participants.

• Understanding of the process of gaining approvalfor FCC systems.

The form that the project would take in the coming year was de-

fined during this period. It would primarily involve development of

a proposal to change the National Electrical Code (NEC) to permit FCC.

A fact-finding study at Underwriters' Laboratories (UL) would be appro-

priate, at least for the undercarpet system, and perhaps for the base-

board system as well. This study would provide background data and

analyses for the NEC proposal. A further requirement would be the

development of overall system specifications, to ensure system safety

and component compatibility.

The need was identified for a general meeting of interested

parties to address the major issues and to develop momentum for an

effective project. This meeting was held in Washington on April 9th;

a second meeting . of interested industry participants occurred on

April 24th.

12

13

6

LAY

The April 9th meeting included participants from NASA, the

Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Bureau of

Standards, the General Services Administration, and private industry,

The main issues that were discussed were;

• Ground Fault Circuit Interruption (GFCI) capacitanceleakage compensator.

ii • Cable standardization: metric vs. English.

• Procedure for accomplishing National ElectricalCode (NEC) changes.

• Coordination of development efforts.

The conclusions of the meeting werd'as follows:

• A special GFCI with variable capacitance compensation

E

should be developed. A private sponsor is needed.

• Cable should be sized according to the English system--specifically, by AWG sizes.

• Procedure for Accomplishing NEC Changes: The deadline forsubmission of a proposal or a Code change is December 1,

Eli 1975. The . ,;stomary procedure is to ask UL to performa fact-finding study in advance of any proposed Code change.It was proposer. that the cost be shared by a number of or-ganizations. This approach received general approval.

• Coordination: NASA should provide the technical leadershipfor the continuing cooperative effort necessary to accom-plish the Code change, since no one of the vendors or pros-

y pective users could comfortably take such a central role.T+E should provide the mechanism for collecting the moniesand arranging the contract with UL; the participating organ-izations should pay for the UL study through T+E,

- The April 24th meeting was a working session of industry partici-

pants to prepare for a meeting with UL to be held early in May. The

meeting dealt almost entirely with the undercarpet system. The

following objectives were accomplished:• Cable dimensions and specifications were provisionally

set.

• Dimensions and configuration for the protective foil wereprovionally set.

14

L

• Different receptacle designs were discussed, and 'a pigtaildevice was chosen for UL submission.

• CFCIJcompensator: possible locations in the system werediscussed.

L9 • UL submission of the baseboard system was discussed; it wasnot supported by industry representatives.

• The schedule and mechanics of submissions were again out-lined; hardware and financial contributions were pro-visionally allocated.

MayUndercarpet Project

The month of May marked the initiation of a working relation-

ship with Undersriters' Laboratories (UL) to obtain a fact-finding

study on the system. In addition, four new manufacturers became in-

volved in the project.

C1 As a result of the May activity, manufacturers are available

to supply all currently needed hardware and materials and a firm

groundwork had been laid for the necessary system validation and

approval.

The highlights of the month's activity were two meetings with

industry participants in the project. On May 7th, a meeting was held

with UL at Melville, Long Island. It was attended by representatives

from:

• AMP, Inc.^; • Dupont Co.

Thomas and Betts, Inc.• UL• Western Electric• T+E

This meeting followed the submission through T+E of a formal request

to UL for a fact-finding study. The meeting accomplished three

• To clarify the steps required for completing the fact-finding study and submitting a Code change proposal.

-

-

_ m et'n with a letter dated MayUL responded to this meetingg y 19th out-

lining the testing program they say as appropriate and a detailed

list of the materials and hardware required. The cost of the under-

__ carpet study was set at $18,000.

{ During this same time period, a search for additional industry

participants continued. Two potential participants in the project

- (General Electric and Leviton) decided early in May not to partici-

pate for the time being. Their loss was balanced, however, by the

entrance of four major new participants:

s Brand-Rex Co. (a cable manufacturer)

• Lamotite Products (a foil manufacturer)

• Millikan, inc. (a carpet manufacturer)

• DuPont (Film Department--for insulating films)

On May 28th, a second meeting of industry participants was held

at Newark Airport. The attendees were:

• Brand-Rex

• DuPont Co.

• Lamotite Products

a Paperfilm Associates (an insulation supplier)

• Thomas 8 Betts, Inc.

e Western Electric

e Technology + Economics, Inc.

The meeting was, in effect, an elaboration of previous meetings:

it introduced the new participants to the project and assessed their

possible contributions to it. The willingness of Brand-Rex, Lamotite,

and DuPont to contribute materials was established. Certain remaining

technical questions were addressed; in particclat, the final configura-

tion of the protective foil was determined, and Lamotite agreed to

fabricate and deliver it.

t16

z

i

CIIt

c

LBaseboard System

Despite the lack of substantive industry support for the base-

board system at this time, NASA decided to initiate a project

through T+E to be carried on in parZLllel with the undercarpet sys-

tem project. Accordingly, a request: for a UL fact-finding study was

received at UL on May 1st. The first part of the hardware submission

was delivered to UL by Marshall Space Flight Center on May 30th.

June

The main role of the UCSP team in June was to finalize the

funding of the UL studies, and to coordinate the production and delivery

of hardware to UL. The month's activity pivotted around two meetings

at UL, dealing respectively with the undercarpet and baseboard sys-

tem projects.

The undercarpet system meeting was held on June 18th and attended

by the following organizations:

• AMP, Inc.• Brand-Rex Co.• Collins and Aikman (a carpet manufacturer)• DuPont• Lamotite Products• Parlex• Thomas and Betts, Inc.• Western Electric• JSC-Urban Systems Project Office• MSFC• T+E

One of these organizations, Collins and Aikman, was a new participant

to the project. There were two purposes to the meeting: to give the

industry participants an opportunity to present and describe the sys-

tem hardware to UL; and to allow UL to further outline their testing

program and requirements in light of the companies' hardware descrip-

tions.

The baseboard system project meeting was held on June 19th.

The attendees were MSFC, UL, Leviton, and T+E. At this meeting UL

outlined its proposed testing program for the baseboard system, in-

cluding the wall and ceiling extension components. This study is

I 17

6LVa

aiuG

a

4Ht

i

simpler than the undercarpet system study because there are prece-

dents to the baseboard system investigation -- notably the Johnsonite

surface-mounted non-metallic raceway, and the preliminary investiga-

tion of flat conductor cable that had been sponsored in 1994 by the

Urban Development Corporation. The only completely new part of the

system is the wall and ceiling extension component. A cost for the

baseboard study of $12,000 was quoted.

On the basis of these meetings, the UL testing programs and

the participants' responsibilities were finalized for the July 1st

hardware submission deadline. For the undercarpet system, the list

of financial contributions took shape, although the distribution of

funding did not become finalized until July.

July

Test installations at UL were made for both FCC systems in July.

The undercarpet system installation occurred on July llth, and was per-

formed by the industry project participants. The baseboard system

was installed on July 29th by Jim Hankins and Jim Cardin of Marshall

Space Flight Center.

The installations went smoothly. The one problem that was noted

at the time was with the undercarpet system: the installed system is

excessively thick at splices and taps. This situation arose as a

result of independed decisions by manufacturers to make their pro-

ducts slightly thicker than was specified. This problem does not

affect UL testing, but will require future refinements in the design

of certain components.

The distribution of financial support of the undercarpet system

UL project was finalized this month, and the supporters were billed.

The accompanying chart shows the distribution of financial as well as

hardware and paperwork contributions to the UL and NEC efforts as they

stand at the end of July.

It was not possible to generate any industrial support for the

baseboard system study by the end of July. As a result, NASA is

bearing complete responsibility at this time for supporting this

effort. However, project participation continues to be explored,

notably with Leviton Corporation and Hi-Temp Wires.

is

it

4

UNDERCARPET SYSTEM

HARDWARE /MONEY /PAPERWORK CONTRIBUTIONS T O UL AND NEC EFFORTS

i

xo

W

U° ~ a A 0 40Mi0 +ac i^Q^

to

a

E-4 E-+caH-^^

z aWas

HARDWARE• Cable .................• Taps, splices,

splice covers.........• Foil ..................• Foil connectors.......• Receptacles and

doghouses .............• Flat-to-round

junction (abovefloor) ................

• Flat-to-roundjunction (duct).......

• Carpet . ...............

MONEY FOR F.F. REPORT...

PAPERWORK• Request forF.F. report ...........

• Endorsement ofF.F. report ...........

• System specifica-tions .................

• NEC proposal ..........

19

A}`,

Y"

r

A study that is related to the UCSP FCC implementation projects

is beginning in July at the Center for Building Technology of the

National Bureau of Standards. The study is being sponsored by the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Its specific

topics are non-metallic sheathed cable (Romex), and flat conductor

cable. The parts of the study that have relevance to the FCC pvoject

are:

• A literature search and evaluation on electrically-caused fires.

• Evaluations of parts of National Electrical Code (NEC)` relating to prohibitions or restrictions on :CC.

• Laboratory investigations o:r fire and electrical safetyaspects of FCC.

ir The HUD/NBS study will aid in increasing knowledge of and visibility

of FCC systems. It will also provide documentation for the proposal

-; s 0. to be submitted in December to change the 1978 NEC to permit use of

FCC.

NBS plans to hold a symposium in the near future on FCC and Romex,

in order to start a dialogue among industry, NAHB, unions, code

bodies, etc., on these topics. T+E will be invited to make a presen-f

taion. The symposium will also serve as part of a lobbying effort

with the NEC Code panel aimed at gaining approval of our Code change

`` $ proposal.

A final aspect of the July activity was an economic study on the

effects of FCC on the demand for electricians in office construction.

This study explores the interaction of three effects on electricians

time that are expected to result from the use of flat conductor cable

in place of round wire. These three effects are:

• Alteration of electricians' time per installation as aresult of a different installation process;

• increase in the amount of new and retrofit office con-` struction occurring due to reduced electrification

cost; and

• increase of the electrical component of building construc-tion.

IR

20

6t

The conclusions of the study are:

e Although the total per-desk cost of power and communi-cations wiring is reduced by use of FCC, the amount ofelectrician labor involved in unchanged.

e The reduction in electrification costs will increaseoffice construction (and office electrification) by 4.1%.

e The reduction in electrification costs will increase theamount of elec:triiication per office by 24%,

e The overall effect will be a 26% increase in electricians'

Ei time.

2.1.3 Summary of FCC Project Participation

URBAN CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY PROJECT

h Technology + Economics, Inc.

e Advocate project participation to industry.LIE`e Assure that system as developed is user/market responsive.

• Coordinate hardware development: assure hardware compati-bility.

• Interface between UL, industry, and government: hardwaredelivery, finances.

e Oversee drafting of system specs and NEC proposal.

GOVERNMENT PARTICIPANTS

hil Johnson Space Center -- Urban Systems Project Office

Carely LivelyTed Hays

e Financial support for BB and UC2 systems.

e Letters of endorsement to UL.

e Advocacy of NASAITU interests.

General Services Administration -- Public Building ServiceCharles C. LawJames King

e User of UC system.

• Potential supporter of UL fact-finding.

e Demonstration installations

"BB" = baseboard.

2 "UC" = undercarpev.

21

^i.t of Housing and Urban Development --s

Pierre Brosseau

• Potential user and supporter of BB system.ue arzmenz or nouszn anti uroan uevely menz -- rodeDevelopment and ResearchJim McCollom

• Funding for NBS investigation of Romex and FCC.

National Bureau of Standards -- Center for Building Technology

Lawrence GallowinWilliam Meese

• Conduct HUDlPDR-funded study on,Romex and FCC--laboratory studies of electrical and fire safety--performance standards for FCC--coordination with UL BB system study

New York State Urban Development Corporation (inactive) i

David Pellish

• Initial advocate of surface-mounted wiring for masonryor concrete multi-family residential construction.

• Prototype installation.

• Corporation financial trouble curtailed involvement.

City of Baltimore

Tom Golden (GSFC)

• Possible user of BB system for renovation.New York City Housing Authority

Eric Nadel

• Possible user of BB system.

INDUSTRY

AMP, Inc.

Jim FleishhackerChuck SchaalEd BunnellAugust KastelJoseph Neigh

• Develop connectors, splices, taps, terminations for ULsubmission and marketing.

• Develop UC telephone system components.

• Provide FCC system cost information.! Financial suppc- for UL fact-finding.

22

U

Bell Labs -- - Whippany, - New York

Len Sessler

e General technical advice.

• Advice on Code proposal.

Brand-Rex Corporation

Irving DwyerEdward BrandeauJoseph Marshall

UKen Brownell

e Cable for UL submission.

a Development of alternate cable constructions and materials.

U-1 * Cable testing.

e Financial support for UC fact-finding.

Collins and Aikman, Inc.

hilLester Votava

e Carpet for UC fact-finding.

a Technical assistance on carpet/UC system interface problems,

U• Financial support for UC fact-finding.

DuPont

Cutter Palmer

e Technical advice on insulation specifications.

e Assist UL and NEC efforts.

a Financial support for fact- finding.

e Manufacture insulating material.

General Electric (delayed involvement)

Tom Swetman

a Potential manufacturer of UC system components,

Hi-Temp Wires

Bill StantBill Frogner

a Possible participation in BB system UL/NEC effort.

e Possible technical assistance in cable development.

Possible* marketer of cable.

3

i

c

L

La= a Products. Inc.

Robert JacksonRobert UnderhillJames Powers

• Specify and provide foil and non-metallic underlay forUC system.

Leviton

LIESaul Rosenbaum

• Develop GFCI/compensator systems.

--in receptacles for BB system--in round-to-flat junction boxes for UC and BB system

• Financial support for BB system fact-finding.

• Potential developer of baseboard system.

Millikan, Inc.

Tony WilliamsJames Hester

• Carpet for UL fact-finding.

• Technical assistance on carpet/UC system interface problems.

• Financial support for UC fact-finding.

The Montgomery Company

James Devine

• Wire manufacturer.

• Possible assistance in cable product engineering.

Parlex

Chuck Surat

! Cable for UL submission.

• Cable testing.

• Market cable.

• Nominal support for fact-finding.

Thomasas and Betts, Inc.

Ed EldridgeDavid BeersManny BrombergRay Piasecki

t24

z

• Original request letter to UL for fact-finding study drafted.

• Develop foil connecting system and receptacle/doghouse forUC study at UL.

• Technical coordination with UL during fact-finding.

• Possible manufacture of cable through Ainsley subsidiary.

• Draft Code changes.

• Financial support for fact-finding.

• Ultimately intends to develop complete UC system formarketing.

Underwriters' Laboratories

H. E. Reymers Ed CoffeyDick Gloyston Ed Krawiec

• Develop testing program and issue fact-finding reports onFCC systems.

• Advice in drafting Code proposal.

Western Electric -- Engineering Research Center

Jack Balde

• Critical catalyst -- large potential user, knowledgabletfarsighted.

• Presentation of relative economics of FCC vs. conventionalwiring.

• Assist development of industry participation.

• Assist development of system 5pecifi^:ations.

• Technical advice on conduct of UL testing.

• Facilitate power/telephone system interface.

• Financial support for fact-finding.

Western Electric -- Plant Design and Construction

Harvey Mumford

• Potential user of UC system; system specifier.

t

25

LI

2.2 THE NASA HOUSE AND COMPENDIUM

The NASA House, or "Project Tech" house is a concept for a

house to be constructed to demonstrate applications of NAaA tech-

nology and other state-of-the-art innovations to residential con-

struction. The House is currently being evaluated for possible

construction at Langley Research Center early in 1976.

Urban Construction and Safety Project team members have parti-

cipated in this effort since its inception in 1974. Inputs to the

project have included:

• A matrix of House components and functions versus sources

of applicable technologies.

• An initial compilation of possible NASA technologies for

inclusion.

• Advice on design philosophy and the criteria for including

various technologies.

3= 9 A background paper by James R. Simpson, "Recent Demonstration-

Type Houses in the U.S.A. -- A Brief Review".

e Assistance in soliciting inputs to the House from the various

centers.

Arrangement for the participation of the National Association

of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Foundation in the design

of the House, and of the Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) to define needs for safety technologies.

An ongoing UCSP activity related to the NASA House project has

been the development of a Compendium of NASA technology. The NASA

House project has involved a survey of NASA technology applicable to

homebuilding. In our own data base survey work, we have extended

the scope of the search from homebuilding to general building con-

struction and safety applications. The anticipated result will be

a well-structured compendium document. Activities to date related

to the Compendium have included:

tI 26

u

Lu

Ap

t

tfEE

• A preliminary scanning of all tech briefs to select

those with possible applications to construction.

• Solicitation of general building-related technology

inputs from the NASA centers in conjunction with the

search for NASA House technologies.

The USCP has been involved in the following NASA House/Compendium

relation activities in the past quarter:

• The UCSP participated in a May meeting between CPSC,

NAHB Research Foundation, NBS, and NASA. The emphasis

of the meeting was on the development of appropriate

criteria for technology inclusion based on life-cycle

costing concepts as well as consideration of relatively

intangible criteria in areas such as product safety.

• Steps were taken in July to initiate a subcontract with

the Research Foundation of NAHB to provide design input

and general technical and evaluative assistance to the

Langley project.

• As part of the UCSP team's July visit to Marshall Space

Flight Center, a presentation of the NASA House project

was made to a Systems Engineering Faculty Fellowship Program

underway there this summer. The focus of this program

was design for.energy conservation. We met with the faculty

members involved in the residential section of the program.

We first presented a general introduction to our technology

transfer activities and to the NASA House project. Then a

discussion was held to solicit approaches and technologies

for the Langley project. A broad discussion developed, con-

cerning overall residential energy conservation strategies

and the implications of the.,evolving structure of the resi-

dential construction industry.

• Jim Simpson visited Mr. Orville Lee of HUD as a followup to

David MacFadyen's letter to him about the NASA House. Lee

expressed interest in contributing ideas. He presented two

ideas in particular: The first is a manufactured stud. The

second is a scheme for providing plans for future alterations

27

te

ecr.LEliLLI'L

iUP

tttt

and additions to "builder houses" at the time of first

purchase. These plans would have the purpose of assuring

safe and workable design of future modifications.

Future work on the NASA House project will depend on the form

the House project takes, including the organizational structure for

accomplishing it. For the time being, the UCSP's primary interface

with the project, beyond participation in project meetings, will be

via its NAHB Research Foundation subcontractor. Active work to

develop the Compendium is planned for the coming fall and winter.r

28

2.3 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDIES

hi[fi

U

ELit-,Ellh

U

As a consequence of recent legislation, the Federal Insurance

Administration (FIA) of the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment (HUD) is required to perform surveys of all flood-prone communi-

ties in the United States in order to determine what flood insurance

rates should be set for different areas of each community. In com-

ing years, up to 20,000 communities will need detailed surveys, at

a total cost of up to $750 million. Less than 1,000 communities

have so far been surveyed. The remaining surveys will have to be

performed quickly, to high standards of accuracy and in the face of

formidable pressure to control the costs.

The FIA is seeking help from NASA to improve their flood insur-

ance study methods. The Urban Construction and Safety Project has

taken the responsibility to work with the FIA in identifying and

assessing possible NASA technologies. Prior to the past quarter of

project activity, James Simpson of Technology + Economics had com-

pleted and subsequently updated a paper entitled, "Potential for

the Application of Advanced Technology to Flood Elevation Studies

of the Flood Insurance Administration". This paper describes thegeneral process of conducting a flood insurance study, and identifies

the major constraints to their timely, accurate, and economical

completion. Based on this work, four problem statements had been

generated and disseminated. The first three of them relate to the

three general areas of traditional flood insurance studies, namely:• surveying

• hydraulic analysis

• map-making and reproduction

The fourth problem statement was designed to elicit totally new ap-

proaches to flood insurance studies, such as possible use of aerial

or satellite imagery.

In the past quarter, there have been two significant UCSP

activities related to flood insurance problems. The first was a

visit with John Leo, a new Assistant Administrator in the Federal

29

Insurance Administration; the second was a visit with Rex

Morton, a Marshall Space Flight Center technologist.

John Leo has recently taken over his present position by

transfer fron HUD's Office of Research. He is disturbed by

FIA's large flood study expenditures and particularly by the

costs of surveying. He wants FIA to more aggressively seek

out new technology to reduce the costs of these studies. He

is interested particularly in the potential of satellite sur-

veying.

Jim Simpson brought Leo up to date concerning our flood

work to date, particularly our problem statements. His office

has not yet reviewed the problem statements, but will do so

soon. It was agreed that we then will redo the statements and

proceed to disseminate them and find solution approaches from

NASA.

Our visit to Rex Morton occurred in conjunction with a

July trip to Marshall Space Flight Center's TU Office. Rex

spent some time with us describing his work and demonstrating

his equipment and facilities. Following a large spring flood

in 1973, Rex supplied data, using standard techniques, to de-

lineate the inundated areas in three local cities. Photographs

were taken using false color IR film from a plane travelling at

12,000 feet. From these pictures, flood lines were drawn on a

standard topographic map using a superimposing optical device.

Rex helped us to identify several issues that will be im-

portant in effectively accessing NASA technologies for flood

studies. Most notably, the following items emerged:

• The crucial distinction in flood studies is whetherone is looking for floods before or after the fact.By flyovers a database can be developed and main-tained, but a distinction has to be made betweennormal years with a normally fluctuating database,and "wild" years, where there are particularly largefluctuations and particularly damaging floods. Ob-serving the normal years does not develop a databasethat is applicable to the wild years.

30

• A problem in any kind of predictive work is thataccurate topo-lines are needed, and small differ-ences in elevation cannot easily be detected by simplylooking downwards. Possibilities that were brain-stormed are stereo pairs of photographs, holographiccameras that read out the third dimension, and sideways-looking radar. The accuracy of these approaches islikely to be insufficient for definitive flood insur-ance work. It may be useful, though, for initial,approximate work.

• one important application is digitization, which canbe used, for example, to superimpose floodlines andtopo-lines at significant cost savings. Work of thistype is in progress at Marshall using computerizedland classifications.

The UCSP's next steps in regard to flood insurance studies

will be first to take advantage of FIA's offer to better define

their problems, and then to initiate interfaces between FIA

and NASA technologists who have possible solution technologies

and processes.

Lai..A --=

Ulf

hHE!

E .1

I31

2.4 TORNADO STUDIES

In response to Congressional interest in tornado problems

and tornado-related research, the Urban Construction and Safety

Project looked in some detail during the past quarter at pos-

Eli applications of NASA technology to this field of study.In May, Jim Simpson, USCP Senior Scientist, interviewed nine-

teen administrators and scientists at different universities

and government agencies to define the nature of the tornado

problem and to assess the scope of current research and future

research needs.

The results of this inquiry was a paper entitled, "Tornado

Related Building Research in the U.S.A.--A Brief Overview". The

conclusions of this paper were as follows:

• The most damaging aspects of tornadoes appear to bethe high winds, either alone or in combination withflying objects. The pressure drop at the vortex isfelt to be less important.

• Current tornado-related research is primarily beingcarried out under the auspices of the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration (NOAA). NSF has been primarilystudying the engineering aspects of the problem, whileNOAA has been concerned with storm mechanisms.

• There is a clear need for more research, in practicallyevery tornado-related area.

Inquiries are needed in the following specific areas:

• Meteorology: Studies are needed of the wind forces

€ and pressure gradients generated by tornadoes; theconditions that trigger them; their rate and path oftravel; and prediction and detection. An inexpensiveand reliable warning device for those in tornado pathswould be worthwhile.

• Fluid Mechanics: How wind interacts with buildings,especia yin connection with flying objects.

• Structures: Failure modes; "minimum life-cycle cost"design methods.

• Analytical Modelling of the dynamic characteristicso storms and buildings.

32

PON

tE

Wind Tunnel Work: Calibration, instrumentation, dataforuse in modelling.

WS

• Reconnaissance and Storm Probing, to analyze storms inprogress and to quickly assess storm damage.

In July, the UCSP inquired into the status of existing tor-

nado work at NASA. In particular, an informative visit was

made to Milton Huffaker, a Marshall Space Flight Center tech-

nologist who is studying dust devils in cooperation with the

' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The main conclusion of this meeting was that although there

is a large and well-coordinated program under the NASA Office of

Applications to study tornadoes from a meteorological point of

view, there appears to be no systematic work going on related to

L tornado damage and tornado-safe engineering. It would seem

that a clear technology transfer opportunity exists in this area:

Ul

there are likely to be a variety of hardward and software devel-

oped for other purposes that would be applicable to tornado prob-

lems.

As a way of promoting applications research of this type,

the USCP is seeking to facilitate a cooperative research pro-

gram between the University of Arkansas W.A.) and NASA for this

winter. Several NASA and U.A. technologists have been identi-

fied who could be involved in this program. Most notably, there

is Dr. Lawrence Pleimann, who is moving from NASA/JSC to take aposition on the U.A. faculty. Dr. Pleimann's primary research

interest will be to develop "hard core" tornado shelter design

concepts for critical buildings.

t1 33

tt

2.5 CONTROLLER FOR STATIONARY DIESELS

At the request of Johnson Space Center, T+E initiated a

brief study in May with Technical Marketing Associates of

Concord, Massachusetts on the market potential for a new NASA

solid state control system for stationary diesels. The TMA

study concluded that the NASA system is fully workable but does

not represent a fundamental improvement over existing designs.

In July, this study was presented to the JSC technologist, Leo

Monford, who initiated the design. Leo felt that the market

study missed certain important features of his design, notably

its potentially much lower cost and its easy replicability.

T+E considers the new controller to be of possible merit, and

will take the step of identifying one or two large users of

stationary diesel controllers who can work with Leo in evaluat-

ing his design and better specifying the areas of needed innova-

tion.

Ellt

t6t

34

3.0 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

This final part of the report focuses on two particular

aspects of the Urban Construction and Safety Project's mode of

operation that the team has scrutinized as part of the past

quarter's activity. These two aspects are

• our tech search and access activities, and

s our interaction with other NASA TU Program elements.

These are discussed in the following sections.-

E

35

tt1

3.1 TECH SEARCH AND ACCESS

The Ur"n Construction and Safety Project at T+E has long

recognized that the main constraint in the NASA technology

transfer process has been the problem of how to effectively

access NASA solution technologies. When problem statements

are disseminated to field centers, feedback has for the most

part been minimal. The reasons have not been clear. Possible

reasons have been that the problem statements have not been

widely enough disseminated at the centers or have not been

disseminated to the right technologists; or that the technolo-

gists have been either not motivated or not able to respond.

In an effort to get to the root of this problem, T+E made

the first of a planned series of visits to field centers in July.

On July 9th and 10th, T+E visited the Technology Utilization

(TU) Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), as well as

several center technologists. The purpose of the trip was not

only to increase our understanding of center tech access pro-

cedures and constraints, but also to improve' communications

with the center visited and to survey available center tech-

nologies in several areas of current interest to us.

The first part of the meeting was built around a slide pre-

sentation of the purpose, context, and operation of the UCSP.

The second part of the meeting was aimed towards obtaining feed-

back from the MSFC attendees. Aubrey Smith, the MSFC TU Officer,

was first asked what he thought would be effective ways for us

LIFE[

to interact with center technologists. Two primary scenarios

for tech access activities were identified: (1) to brainstorm

intensively with a small number of.^echnologists (4 or 5) and

cover perhaps three problem areas in one day; and (2) to choose

100 technologists who might have inputs, and circulate problem

statements to them. The second approach has the advantage over

the first of being less expensive.

36

tI

Next the problem was addressed of why technologists may

not respond to problem statements for which they have input.

The following points emerged about the committments and moti-

vations of technologists:

s The natural reaction of technologists is to want tosolve problems.

s Technologists are constrained, however, by man-hourallottments that require that they spend their timein particular ways.

e It is therefore more a question of facilitatinli thanmotivating response to urban construction and safetyproblems,

• Technologists' inputs would be best facilitated byhaving time allottments and work account numbers foracting on problem statements.

• A discretionary budget to pay for technologists' workon Urban Construction and Safety problems could bemade available through the TU Office from Bill Smith.An advance set-aside is also needed for shopwork.

• Our problem statements should be disseminated via theLab Directors, in part because the Directors can bestdistribute them in useful directions, and in part be-cause their authority will legitimize working on them.

• To accomplish this arrangement, it will be necessaryto work from the ground up to establish communicationswith the Lab Directors (most Lab Directors don't knowabout the UCSF). This would be most appropriately thejob of the TU Officers.

Thus, it appears that our tech access activities should

follow the general NASA trend towards establishment of formal

eslinks rocedures, and budgeting. The availability of dis-g ^ FY

cretionary funds at the centers appears to be an essential

element of any strong tech access program.

Ii

ii37

3.2 INTERACTION WITH OTHER NASA TU PROGRAM ELEMENTS

The focus of the UCSP's examination of its relationship to

other Technology Utilization (TU) Program elements was a general

TU Program conference in May that was attended by UCSP team mem-

bers. The conference included a series of workshops for each pro-

gram element. Several insights and policy directions emerged during

the Technology Application Team (TATeam) workshop that are important

to the operation of the T+E UCSP. They are as follows:

1. TATeam reporting must take full account of the infor-mation needs of Headquarters. These needs include:a schedule of major events; input to the NASA TU Repovt;Congressional testimony (preferably one year in ad-vance); and documentation of all major exhibits, speeches,and demonstrations.

In addition, there is Denver Research Institute's effortto document benefits of NASA TU activities. Case studiesare very important; it was suggested that all TATeamsstart benefits notebooks related to their activites.

2. Applications Engineering projects should be taken advan-tage of to provide opportunities for the Centers to makeRTOP proposals to NASA TU Headquarters.

3. NASA is instituting a new Commercial Opportunity BriefProgram that may provide additional support for TATeamefforts to commercialize certain products such as thebaseboard wiring system which have no commercial interestsat this time.

4. When the process of accessing NASA technology was dis-

cEf ussed, the ongoing problems of Cezzter interest and TUOfficer time availability were breugh up. One promisingsuggestion was that technology searches and problem state-ments be disseminated to the patent counsels at each center.

S. Public technology, Inc. is woVking with a group of codeofficials of the wajor cities. They have assembled a usercommittee and may help to gain acceptance of flat conductorcable in major building codes.

6. Suggestions were solicited in two areas: The first area isnew approaches to internally marketing TU within NASA. Thesecond area is new fields of TATeam activ4.ty.

t

For the UCSP team, the general result of the meeting was a

substantially increased awareness of the USCP's relationship to

the TU program as a whole. There are important benefits to main-

taining close relationships between UCSP and the total TU context:

In particular, the position of the total TU program is enhanced

when its elements, such are UCSP, are effectively reporting their

activities and benefits to its central dissemination and advocacy

functions, most particularly Headquarters. Conversely, by under-

standing the rest of the program, the UCSP is able to take advantage

of complementary .functions such as the Public Technology, Inc. user

committee.

39 .